Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T07:04:15.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Applying morphosyntactic and phonological readjustment rules in natural language negation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

Roland Pfau
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Richard P. Meier
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin
Kearsy Cormier
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin
David Quinto-Pozos
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin
Get access

Summary

Introduction

As is well known, negation in natural languages comes in many different forms. Crosslinguistically, we observe differences concerning the morphological character of the Neg (negation) element as well as concerning its structural position within a sentence. For instance, while many languages make use of an independent Neg particle (e.g. English and German), in others, the Neg element is affixal in nature and attaches to the verb (e.g. Turkish and French). Moreover, a Neg particle may appear in sentence-initial position, preverbally, postverbally, or in sentence-final position (for comprehensive typological surveys of negation, see Dahl 1979; 1993; Payne 1985).

In this chapter I am concerned with morphosyntactic and phonological properties of sentential negation in some spoken languages as well as in German Sign Language (Deutsche Gebärdensprache or DGS) and American Sign Language (ASL). Sentential negation in DGS (as well as in other sign languages) is particularly interesting because it involves a manual and a nonmanual element, namely the manual Neg sign NICHT ‘not’ and a headshake that is associated with the predicate. Despite this peculiarity, I show that on the morphosyntactic side of the Neg construction, we do not need to refer to any modality-specific structures and principles. Rather, the same structures and principles that allow for the derivation of negated sentences in spoken languages are also capable of accounting for the sign language data.

On the phonological side, however, we do of course observe modality-specific differences; those are due to the different articulators used.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ablorh-Odjidja, J. R. 1968. Ga for beginners. Accra: Waterville Publishing
Baumbach, E. J. M. 1987. Analytical Tsonga grammar. Pretoria: University of South Africa
Becker-Donner, Etta. 1965. Die Sprache der Mano (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sitzungsbericht 245 (5)). Wien: Böhlaus
Bergman, Brita. 1995. Manual and nonmanual expression of negation in Swedish Sign Language. In Sign language research 1994: Proceedings of the Fourth European Congress on Sign Language Research, ed. Heleen Bos and Trude Schermer, 85–103. Hamburg: Signum
Boyes Braem, Penny. 1995. Einführung in die Gebärdensprache und ihre Erforschung. Hamburg: Signum
Brauner, Siegmund. 1995. A grammatical sketch of Shona. Köln: Köppe
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Capell, A. and H. E. Hinch. 1970. Maung grammar, texts and vocabulary. The Hague: Mouton
Caron, B. 1990. La négation en Haoussa. Linguistique Africaine 4:32–46Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Coerts, Jane. 1990. The analysis of interrogatives and negations in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Current trends in European Sign Language research: Proceedings of the3rdEuropean Congress on Sign Language Research, ed. Siegmund Prillwitz and Tomas Vollhaber, 265–277. Hamburg: Signum
Coulter, Geoffrey R. 1982. On the nature of ASL as a monosyllabic language. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego, CA
Creissels, D. 1998. Expansion and retraction of high tone domains in Setswana. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu tone, ed. Larry M. Hyman and Charles W. Kisseberth, 133–194. Stanford: CSLI
Dahl, Östen. 1979. Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 17:79–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1993. Negation. In Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld and Theo Vennemann, 914–923. Berlin: de Gruyter
Deuchar, M. 1984. British Sign Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1993. A grammar of Mupun. Berlin: Reimer
Glück, Susanne and Roland Pfau. 1999. A Distributed Morphology account of verbal inflection in German Sign Language. In Proceedings of ConSOLE 7, ed. Tina Cambier-Langeveld, Anikó Lipták, Michael Redford and Eric Jan van der Torre, 65–80. Leiden: SOLE
Goldsmith, John. 1979. Autosegmental phonology. New York: Garland
Goldsmith, John. 1990. Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell
Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The syntax of negation. Oxford: Cambridge University Press
Haegeman, Liliane and Raffaella, Zanuttini. 1991. Negative heads and the Neg-criterion. The Linguistic Review 8:233–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1990. An approach to morphology. In Proceedings of NELS 20, 150–185. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Halle, Morris. 1994. The Russian declension. An illustration of the theory of Distributed Morphology. In Perspectives in phonology, ed. Jennifer Cole and Charles W. Kisseberth, 29–60. Stanford: CSLI
Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30, 425–449. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, MA
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20. Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Ken Hale and Samuel J. Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21, 275–288. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, MA
Harley, Heidi and Rolf, Noyer. 1999. Distributed Morphology. Glot International 4:3–9Google Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina. 1999. Doppelte Negation im Háusá. Paper presented at Generative Grammatik des Südens (GGS 1999). Universität Stuttgart, May 1999
Hyman, Larry M. 1990. Boundary tonology and the prosodic hierarchy. In The phonology-syntax connection, ed. Sharon Inkelas and Draga Zec, 109–125. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
Hyman, Larry M. and J. T. Mathangwane. 1998. Tonal domains and depressor consonants in Ikalanga. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu tone, ed. Larry M. Hyman and Charles W. Kisseberth, 195–229. Stanford: CSLI
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
Liddell, Scott. 1980. American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton
Lyovin, Anatole V. 1997. An introduction to the languages of the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press
McCarthy, John. 1988. Feature geometry and dependency: A review. Phonetica 43: 84–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, Scott. 1987. Tone and the structure of words in Shona. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. (Published by Garland Press, New York. 1990.)
Neidle, Carol, Benjamin, Bahan, Dawn, MacLaughlin, Robert, G. Lee, and Judy, Kegl. 1998. Realizations of syntactic agreement in American Sign Language: Similarities between the clause and the noun phrase. Studia Linguistica 52:191–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neidle, Carol, Judy Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin, Benjamin Bahan, and Robert G. Lee. 2000. The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Noyer, Rolf. 1998. Impoverishment theory and morphosyntactic markedness. In Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, ed. S. G. Lapointe, D. K. Brentari and P. M. Farrell, 264–285. Stanford: CSLI
Odden, David. 1995. Tone: African languages. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. John A. Goldsmith, 444–475. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
Ouhalla, Jamal. 1990. Negation, relativized minimality and the aspectual status of auxiliaries. The Linguistic Review 7:183–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overdulve, C. M. 1975. Apprendre la langue rwanda. The Hague: Mouton
Payne, John R. 1985. Negation. In Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 1: Clause structure, ed. Timothy Shopen, 197–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Perlmutter, David M. 1992. Sonority and syllable structure in American Sign Language. Linguistic Inquiry 23:407–442Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland. 2001. Typologische und strukturelle Aspekte der Negation in Deutscher Gebärdensprache. In Gebärdensprachlinguistik 2000: Theorie und Anwendung, ed. Helen Leuninger and Karin Wempe, 13–31. Hamburg: Signum
Pfau, Roland and Susanne Glück. 1999. The pseudo-simultaneous nature of complex verb forms in German Sign Language. In Proceeding of the 28thWestern Conference on Linguistics, ed. Nancy M. Antrim, Grant Goodall, Martha Schulte-Nafeh and Vida Samiian, 428–442. Fresno, CA: CSU
Pfau, Roland and Susanne Glück. 2000. Negative heads in German Sign Language and American Sign Language. Paper presented at 7th International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR 2000). Universiteit van Amsterdam, July
Pilleux, Mauricio. 1991. Negation in Chilean Sign Language. Signpost Winter 1991: 25–28
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20:365–424Google Scholar
Poulos, George. 1990. A linguistic analysis of Venda. Pretoria: Via Afrika Ltd
Rathmann, Christian. 2000. Does the presence of person agreement marker predict word order in signed languages? Paper presented at 7th International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR 2000). Universiteit van Amsterdam, July
Rathmann, Christian. 2001. The optionality of Agreement Phrase: Evidence from signed languages. Paper presented at Conference of the Texas Linguistic Society (TLS 2001). University of Texas at Austin, March 2001
Redden, J. E. and N. Owusu. 1963. Twi: Basic course. Washington, DC: Foreign Service Institute
Rondal, J.-A., F. Henrot, and M. Charlier. 1997. Le langage des signes. Aspects psycholinguistiques et éducatifs. Sprimont: Mardaga
Tuldava, J. 1994. Estonian textbook: Grammar, exercises, conversation. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies
Veinberg, Silvana C. 1993. Nonmanual negation and assertion in Argentine Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 79:95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veinberg, Silvana C., and Ronnie, B. Wilbur. 1990. A linguistic analysis of the negative headshake in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 68:217–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogt-Svendsen, Marit. 2000. Negation in Norwegian Sign Language and in contrast to some features in German Sign Language. Poster presented at 7th International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR 2000). Universiteit van Amsterdam, July
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1990. Why syllables? What the notion means for ASL research. In Theoretical issues in sign language research, Vol. 1: Linguistics, ed. Susan Fisher and Peter Siple, 81–108. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2000. Phonological and prosodic layering of nonmanuals in American Sign Language. In The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, ed. Karen Emmorey and Harlan Lane, 215–244. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Wilbur, Ronnie B. and Cynthia, G. Patschke. 1998. Body leans and the marking of contrast in American Sign Language. Journal of Pragmatics 30:275–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Sandra K. 1999. Semantic and syntactic aspects of negation in ASL. MA thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1991. Syntactic properties of sentential negation. A comparative study of Romance languages. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania
Zeshan, Ulrike. 1997. “Sprache der Hände?”: Nichtmanuelle Phänomene und Nutzung des Raums in der Pakistanischen Gebärdensprache. Das Zeichen 39:90–105Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×